As an experienced professional interpreter and translator, I'd like to remind pedes that any simultaneous interpreting is going to omit at least 30%+ content and meaning from the interaction.
This is an unavoidable result of the interpreter having to both listen and speak at the same time, and to operate in real time at the same speed of the person who is speaking. Interpreting from one language to another is a highly complex activity requiring massive amounts of mental energy, and it is simply impossible for an interpreter to effectively both listen and speak at the same rate that the original speaker is thinking and talking.
Moreover, when an interpreter does not have native-level fluency in the target language, also, a variety of nuances can be lost.
Listening to the interpreter ("interpreting" = audio or spoken translation, "translation" = translation of a text), it is clear when certain nuances were omitted, and sometimes not well expressed in English.
For example, at one point, the interpreter for Putin says "That's a subtle question". It seems clear from context that what he means here is "that's a crafty question" "that's a clever/sneaky question", edgy. That is, a question designed to prod, trick, maneuver or even manipulate the respondent, even though the emphasis isn't that strong.
Edit: Another example is when Putin appears to be speaking in the first person, obviously conveying what 'Ukraine' is saying, but the interpreter says "we, you" etc, and that can be a bit confusing at times. Is he saying "We, the Russians", or is he saying "We, the Ukrainians", or "We, the Germans", etc?
Recommended: to really understand and grasp the content of Putin's replies, seek out a translation into English of a transcript of his answers.
(What I mean is, at some point, someone - probably an official Russian agency - will publish a transcript of Putin's actual words. Hopefully, someone or some party will then undertake a professional translation of that transcript. Such a translation will show much more clearly what Putin was actually saying.)
When a transcript is created, all the words spoken are recorded and then a translator can spend much more time and effort refining the translation and conveying the nuances, subtle meanings, and exact expressions in the target language - in this case, English.
Simultaneous interpreting delivers only a very broad foundation for interaction and dialog, but necessarily omits a lot of the meaning. The core elements are there, but many of the nuances get lost.
Addendum: Here is a transcript of the interview, but NOTE, this is a transcript of Tucker and the Interpreter, and technically, these are not Putin's own words.
Sadly, many outside the interpreting profession have little awareness of the natural and necessary limitations of simultaneous interpreting, and tend to deal with an interpreter's words as if they are the original speakers own words. They are not. So it is critical to allow for at least a 20%+ margin of error.
Great idea.
Very Good information! Thank you.
Subtle implied clever and masked, which sounds right for the question lol
I guess that's a matter of opinion. I thought the use of subtle, while a good choice, did not sound natural for modern English.
Knowing how these people use wordplay and doublespeak, this is a good idea. Don't want a controlled avenue of awakening winning - it's gotta be organic or military. Otherwise we're much worse off. The drops mapped out the AJ network well, with their involvement in J6, some key players are being put in the spotlight for a reason IMO
And judging by some post titles and comments some people do not listen very well and mis-hear entire translated sentences.
:DDD
My fren never disappoints
Fascinating — never realized nuances are possibly lost via need for speed. Where might someone search to see if this has/will be released?
Great question. My guess would be some official Russian govt website. They would have an interest firstly in printing Putin's native Russian transcript, plus providing an English translation.
From personal experience, Russian is a somewhat blunt language. Not that there is no nuance, but anytime I've translated Russian/English, and vice versa, Russian is less nuanced than English. Just IMO, YMMV though.
Thanks
I was wondering about this, thanks!
An interpreter giving his English say of what Putin was answering could have many nuances and different slants on the actual Russian language meaning. This also can be shown by how different scribes when interpreting the Bible transcripts gave different views on the actual wording. For instances, in the first Bible transcripts found, there was no saying from Jesus, “Father forgive them, for they not know what they do.” This was added later when a different scribe translated. He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone. Another translation found in later works by scribes. So, we must keep an open mind with this translater, until the Russian transcript can be published.
I wondered about this. I also noticed that the subtitles were, on many occasions, different than what the interpreter was saying. There were a lot of things in the subtitles that weren't spoken by the interpreter.
Oh, I didn't see a subtitled version. Where did you see that?
The one that was posted on Tucker's website
aha. I only watched the X version.
interdasting.
This exact interpreter has apparently been working with option translations for a long time, though- it's the same voice I've heard for many events now- go search and listen, don't just believe me.
Anyway, I've volunteer interpreted (for less auspicious personages), and also helped with written translations of material, yes I agree that perhaps nuance is lost, but that's true no matter how much time you have. All pro interpreters will do the complex, context-related best they can, and I also think that "a subtle question" was the right translation. Putin is familiar with being translated and do you all not think he speaks English by now?
Thanks for your comments.
Yes, no translation can ever perfectly convey all the meaning of the original. But the point is that interpreting is far more limited due to time constraints in terms of how accurate it can be. That's just a fact. I say that on the basis of more than 30 years experience in translating and interpreting.
If people can mentally take stock of the fact that what they listened to was not Putin, but an interpreter doing his best to convey what Putin was saying, and draw the distinction between the two, then that would be a good take away.
I know by experience that some people tune so deeply in to what an interpreter is saying that they think its actually what the original person is saying, and they mentally conflate the two.
I am absolutely sure that Putin is 💯% fluent in English. Therefore he cannot be misinterpreted without his own knowledge. Many world leaders are polylingual they just do not show their opponents so they can eavesdrop easier.
PS.
What makes you so absolutely sure about this?
Asking for a friend.
Trump speaks other languages too....watch his reactions with some foreign leaders. Melania speaks 5 languages so she probably helped.
Because I've seen him laugh and smirk at world leaders many times before the translator even starts translating.
That doesn't mean he's "100% fluent in English". But Ok, thanks for the answer!
Definitely does not mean he doesn't either. You're awful stuck on semantics and a little unwilling to think outside the box.
haha. Sure, it doesn't mean he isn't either. He might be. Personally, I don't know.
That might be true. (but it's not semantics; sorry. Linguistics major here!)
No, I simply like to inform my thinking with data, evidence, and balance, and take care not to play too much into my own biases.
Saying that your 100% that Putin is fluent in English without a lot of serious corroborative evidence isn't thinking outside the box. It's willingly conflating a belief and a speculation with fact. It's OK to have beliefs, and to speculate, and even to make assumptions, but mistaking them for facts can cause a lot of problems!
Well, firstly, I don't think he was listening to the English interpreter. He may have been, but I think its more likely that he simply had his own interpreter who was conveying Tucker's questions, as would be standard practice even if he has a good knowledge of English.
Also, normally, the interpreter who's English we are listening to is very likely Putin's own staff interpreter, so there would be no need for him to check or worry about that interpreter, a professional, slipping up.
Anyway, I'm not suggesting that Putin was misinterpreted. I'm simply pointing out the natural limitations of simultaneous interpreting. As anons, we should be aware that just listening to the interpreter doesn't mean we get the full and complete picture.
It is easier to translate from English to Spanish or from Spanish to English in an interview, as both are more common languages spoken and learned, than it is to translate from Russian to English or from English to Russian, from Russian to Spanish or from Spanish to Russian, or other not so common languages.
OK. Hang on. This statement requires qualification.
Firstly, it all depends on WHO is doing the interpreting (or translating). If we're talking about native speakers of either of those language pairs, then we might say yes, x language pair is easier (or simpler) than y language pair.
Secondly, Russian is far more common in Russia than Spanish. But if you mean it is more common for an English speaker to learn Spanish than it is for an English speaker to learn Russian, ok.
The difficulty of interpreting between certain languages is not related directly to how common they are learned, but due to the similarities in grammar, lexicon, syntax and so forth. English and Spanish are much more similar than English and Russian, for example.
Both Spanish and English share a many common roots, which is not the case between English and Russian.
When Trudeau and Xi got into their unpleasant back snd forth, a lot was not translated because there was only one interpreter , and the two men were talking over each other.